I agree with this post from iowntheworld.com
Barack Obama, through his spokesman, claimed that he was unaware of the tax day tea parties. But how out of touch is the Community Organizer in Chief, really?
This much.
- He was unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America.
- He was unaware that he was family friends with and started his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.
- He was unaware that he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005.
- He was unaware that his own aunt was living in the U.S. illegally.
- He was unaware that his own brother lives on pennies a day in a hut in Kenya.
- He was unaware of the AIG bonuses that he and his administration approved and signed into a bill.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Commerce was under investigation in a bribery scandal.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be the U.S. Trade Representative was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the woman he nominated to be his Chief Performance Officer was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be #2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was under investigation for mismanaging $25 million in EPA grants.
To quote the great Westley, speaking to the six-fingered man, "We are men of action. lies do not become us." And they do not become a president.
Hi Daniel;
If you ask me the above list is silly. A will comment on a few of the points:
1. Obama's former pastor (Jeremiah Wright) is NOT a racist, nor does he hate America. The out of context clips that were played from his sermons gave a different impression from what Wright was really saying. He DID claim that our nation has committed lots of terrible crimes during our history (chattel slavery, genocide against the people who were living here when we settled, the fire bombing of Dresden, the atomic bombing of Japan), and he argued that these actions were against God's will. Even if you disagree with Wright about some of the specifics, you cannot justify the claim that he HATES America.
4. There is nothing at all suspicious about Oabam not realizing that he had an aunt living in the US illegally. I have cousins that I don't even know exist, they could be cannibals for all I know.
9-12 (supposed tax cheaters): The President nominated some people for some Washington jobs who knew how the system worked. Some of those people were dinged for tax issues. There is no reason to think that their mistakes weren't honest mistakes and there is no reason to think that the White House should have omniscient information about them. I don't have too much problem with their being disqualified but it is silly to consider those issues to be Obama's character problem.
It seems to me that you right wingers have been (since before the election) making mountains out of mole hills. The President is a moderate liberal, governing in exceptional times. You guys make him out to be a Leninist Boss Tweed! I think that's silly.
your friend
Keith
Why are you feeding this troll, Keith?
>> KEITH: you cannot justify the claim that he HATES America.
Agreed, though interestingly, using your broader definition of racist, I would say that he is. Even using MY stricter version, which would require him to condemn white people – well, don't you think he's guilty? How come you are so soft on him when he's ambiguous in his racism, but so much harder on conservatives who don't even DISCUSS skin color?
>> KEITH: There is nothing at all suspicious about Oabam not realizing that he had an aunt living in the US illegally. I have cousins that I don't even know exist, they could be cannibals for all I know.
Well, the author was compiling a list, with some oversights more incredible than others. But it does give the impression that the president is playing coy, since we know he's smart.
>> KEITH: The President nominated some people for some Washington jobs who knew how the system worked. Some of those people were dinged for tax issues. There is no reason to think that their mistakes weren't honest mistakes and there is no reason to think that the White House should have omniscient information about them.
There are many problems that you overlook. First, these tax cheats were over FINANCIAL divisions of of government (Trade, Treasury, and Commerce) – and what is the likelihood that like 4 in a row were all appointed? This points to either or both that (a) Democrats are really corrupt, and/or what is more likely (b) Obama's associates are corrupt.
Coupled with his defense of 'look who I surround myself with,' such PR disasters are damning.
>> KEITH: It seems to me that you right wingers have been (since before the election) making mountains out of mole hills.
While some of these on their own might be mole hills, many are gross oversights, and the trends and patterns indicate to us that Obama's administration is, with regard to corruption, worse than past ones, and this is a direct reflection on the president.
He can not shake the public image that his partners behind the doors of power are corrupt creeps, and I get the feeling that the corrupt, servile liberal media is making mole hills out of mountains, and cooperating with the Obama administration in public diversions away from the issues.
I am growing in my conviction that, despite his pleasant demeanor and marvelous oratory delivery, he is not to be trusted, and is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's a far left liberal who would, as we have seen, steamroll over his political opponents (with a smile).
But again, the statement that this somewhat cynical and slightly exaggerated list is supposed to convey is that Obama's administration and associates are dishonest, and Obama plays coy.
None of us believe that he knew nothing about the Tea Party rallies – I mean, below his radar? More like Above his pay grade.
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: you cannot justify the claim that he HATES America.
DANIEL: Agreed, though interestingly, using your broader definition of racist, I would say that he is. Even using MY stricter version, which would require him to condemn white people – well, don't you think he's guilty? How come you are so soft on him when he's ambiguous in his racism, but so much harder on conservatives who don't even DISCUSS skin color?
KEITH: I guess I wasn't clear in my comments about racism. Calling a person racist seems a lot stronger that we all harbor some degree of racism, which is what I admit to and what I claim motivates some (too much but not nearly all) of the opposition to the President. In my opinion for a PERSON to qualify as a racist he has to have significant hostile beliefs about other ethnicities. I have no reason to suppose Wright has that at all.
KEITH: There is nothing at all suspicious about Obama not realizing that he had an aunt living in the US illegally. I have cousins that I don't even know exist, they could be cannibals for all I know.
DANIEL: Well, the author was compiling a list, with some oversights more incredible than others. But it does give the impression that the president is playing coy, since we know he's smart.
KEITH: Clearly the compiler of the list was TRYING to give that impression but IMO the specific charges made are really weak.
>> KEITH: The President nominated some people for some Washington jobs who knew how the system worked. Some of those people were dinged for tax issues. There is no reason to think that their mistakes weren't honest mistakes and there is no reason to think that the White House should have omniscient information about them.
DANIEL: There are many problems that you overlook. First, these tax cheats were over FINANCIAL divisions of of government (Trade, Treasury, and Commerce)…
KEITH: You keep calling them tax CHEATS. You have no reason to believe their tax problems weren't honest errors.
DANIEL: – and what is the likelihood that like 4 in a row were all appointed? This points to either or both that (a) Democrats are really corrupt, and/or what is more likely (b) Obama's associates are corrupt.
KEITH: I have no idea WHAT proportion of wealthy people with lots of money invested would have technical problems with their tax returns were those returns scrutinized. People involved in financial stuff try to take advantage of every legal deduction available and the complexities of tax law might well imply a certain amount of mistakes. If their deductions aren't legitimate they pay up later.
>> KEITH: It seems to me that you right wingers have been (since before the election) making mountains out of mole hills.
DANIEL: While some of these on their own might be mole hills, many are gross oversights, and the trends and patterns indicate to us that Obama's administration is, with regard to corruption, worse than past ones, and this is a direct reflection on the president.
KEITH: None of the things on the list were GROSS, it is absurd to call the Obama administration ocorrupt at all, you come to this conclusion BECAUSE you are building mountains out of molehills, IMO.
DANIEL: He can not shake the public image that his partners behind the doors of power are corrupt creeps, and I get the feeling that the corrupt, servile liberal media is making mole hills out of mountains, and cooperating with the Obama administration in public diversions away from the issues.
KEITH; Daniel his personal approval is still relatively high, the public image you are talking about is only shared by the right wing. It's a function OF the anti-Obama hysteria, the same as the list you posted.
DANIEL; I am growing in my conviction that, despite his pleasant demeanor and marvelous oratory delivery, he is not to be trusted, and is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's a far left liberal who would, as we have seen, steamroll over his political opponents (with a smile).
KEITH: You are of couse entitled to your opinion, shared by millions of right wingers around the country.
your friend
Keith
>> KEITH: You are of couse entitled to your opinion, shared by millions of right wingers around the country.
It doesn't matter who shares them, what matters is if they are true or not. And like it or not, it is almost as important to manage one's image in politics as it is to have the right motives – that is, even if Obama is a saint worthy of worship, he's not doing a good job of managing expectations and perception with his sloppy appointments, talking down to and insulting the Americans who disagree with him, and surrounding himself with 'competent' 'criminals', both descriptors which may be incorrect, but then again not.
Regarding his popularity:
1. His high ratings are not entirely due to the popularity of his policies, but to his race, his non-Bushness, and the typical honeymoon period.
2. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll show that:
– 32% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President.
– 39% Strongly Disapprove
This gives Obama a 'Presidential Approval Index' rating of -7
I hate to tell you, but 39% of the electorate is not 'far right.'
– 51% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance
– 48% now disapprove.
That's not the overwhelming 'mandate' that liberals think exists.
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: You are of couse entitled to your opinion, shared by millions of right wingers around the country.
It doesn't matter who shares them, what matters is if they are true or not. And like it or not, it is almost as important to manage one's image in politics as it is to have the right motives – that is, even if Obama is a saint worthy of worship, he's not doing a good job of managing expectations and perception with his sloppy appointments, talking down to and insulting the Americans who disagree with him, and surrounding himself with 'competent' 'criminals', both descriptors which may be incorrect, but then again not.
The thing is, those image "problems" you are complaining about are only image problems to the right wing. Most people do not agree with you about those things. The right wing disliked Obama from the beginning, in fact they have an extremely skewed view of his Presidency.
Regarding his popularity:
1. His high ratings are not entirely due to the popularity of his policies, but to his race, his non-Bushness, and the typical honeymoon period.
The point still remains: the picture you painted of Obama;s image is inconsistent with his relatively high ratings.
2. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll show that:
– 32% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President.
– 39% Strongly Disapprove
This gives Obama a 'Presidential Approval Index' rating of -7
Quoting a single poll doesn't prove much; more important is the average of all reputable polls. Rasmussen usually has a slight Republican lean relative to the rest of the polling universe. But let's stipulate your claim here. There are quite a few people on the left who strongly disapprove of Obama's performance as President because (they feel) he has been too reluctant to take on the Republicans. If I were polled I would say I approved of the job Obama is doing but I wouldn't STRONGLY approve. I would not be counted in your rating.
I hate to tell you, but 39% of the electorate is not 'far right.'
Some are far right, some are regular right, some are on the left.
– 51% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance
– 48% now disapprove.
That's not the overwhelming 'mandate' that liberals think exists.
Another interesting bit of polling trivia: 67% think Americans should have the OPTION of buying to Medicare, 29% say no. I would guess that a big portion of the disapproval comes from people who think Obama is caving into the Republicans on the public option.
your friend
Keith
>> KEITH: Most people do not agree with you about those things. The right wing disliked Obama from the beginning, in fact they have an extremely skewed view of his Presidency.
So did most republicans, but due to his hyperliberal policies. Nothing extreme about that.
>> KEITH: The point still remains: the picture you painted of Obama;s image is inconsistent with his relatively high ratings.
No, though his ratings are high, his high disapproval levels are higher than his high approval levels. MY point is that his approval levels are NO LONGER overwhelmingly high, and that his approvers are a SLIM majority. And that will change even more as he fails to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions and nuclear overtures towards Israel, the continued failure of the economy, and the rejection of his health care boondoggle by the public.
>> KEITH: Quoting a single poll doesn't prove much; more important is the average of all reputable polls.
Not true. Averaging in BAD poll samples (like recent CNN poll whose sample was overwhelmingly Democratic) does not make it better. I would say that Rasmussen is one of the best, and most up to date.
>> KEITH: Another interesting bit of polling trivia: 67% think Americans should have the OPTION of buying to Medicare, 29% say no. I would guess that a big portion of the disapproval comes from people who think Obama is caving into the Republicans on the public option.
I hope he does.
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: The point still remains: the picture you painted of Obama;s image is inconsistent with his relatively high ratings.
No, though his ratings are high, his high disapproval levels are higher than his high approval levels.
Not true. On ONE POLL you cited (the Rasmussen poll that is an outlier compared to most polls–even compared to the Fox News Poll) had the STRONGLY disapprove numbers higher than than the STRONGLY approve numbers. A poll more in line with the rest of the polls is by Democracy Corp and they have the numbers approximately reversed: 37% strongly approve vs. 33% strongly disapprove.
MY point is that his approval levels are NO LONGER overwhelmingly high, and that his approvers are a SLIM majority.
Most polls show Obama's approval/disapproval margin to be about 11%. The poll you cited is the only poll that shows it close. Rasmussen has been a consistent outlier.
And that will change even more as he fails to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions and nuclear overtures towards Israel, the continued failure of the economy, and the rejection of his health care boondoggle by the public.
I never make predictions, especially predictions supported by cheap rhetoric. I suppose you think we should invade Iran?
KEITH: Quoting a single poll doesn't prove much; more important is the average of all reputable polls.
Not true. Averaging in BAD poll samples (like recent CNN poll whose sample was overwhelmingly Democratic) does not make it better. I would say that Rasmussen is one of the best, and most up to date.
For Rasmussen to be the BEST poll you have to believe that all the other polls are very far off. I find that difficult to believe. The point of averaging polls is exactly to balance OUT the bad polls. Real Clear Politics includes Rasmussen in it's list of polls. It doesn't include CNN. Rasmussen is far and away the outlier. Most of the other polls have Obama double digits ahead of his disapproval.
KEITH: Another interesting bit of polling trivia: 67% think Americans should have the OPTION of buying to Medicare, 29% say no. I would guess that a big portion of the disapproval comes from people who think Obama is caving into the Republicans on the public option.
I hope he does.
I expect no less from you. But the point is: of the about 40% who disapprove of the job the President is doing (I am not using Rasmussen's outlying 49% number), a significant proportion are people who think he needs to be MORE liberal. It is smaller number who shares your view that Obama is a dangerous corrupt radical socialist. Obama's political problems are not with the public, they are Republican party and its hyper reactionariness and with Blue Dog Democrats who are more afraid of offending the Insurance Lobby than they are of their constituents who overwhelmingly support people being able to opt into Medicare as an option for health care reform.
your friend
Keith